____________________________________________
Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told reporters on Friday evening that Mr. Gonzales’s attendance at the hourlong meeting was not inconsistent with his past remarks.

“He tasked his chief of staff to carry this plan forward,” Ms. Scolinos said. “He did not participate in the selection of the U.S. attorneys to be fired. He did sign off on the final list.”
____________________________________________

Hey, great idea! Let's continue to blow this out of proportion and see if we can make it a 'real scandal'. Heck, it somewhat worked with that stupid Plame thing, but not as much as we wanted, so lets try again.

You know the old expression about not trusting a guy who doesn't drink? Well, for this administration the motto is: "Never trust a guy who can't lie with a smile on his face." This, the war, the bankrupting of our country is the result.

I think some of the most extraordinary statements to date around this are Tony Snow's feigned shock at the rejection of their offering up staff to talk to Congress. Of course that was only if they're not under oath, and no transcripts are made.

He should have said "only if they can cross their fingers behind their back."

When my kids were growing up --as my step-kids are now-- I always said you can be forgiven for screwing up (we all do now and then) but don't lie about it. Lying is the worst thing of all.

That we have just blatant liars at every level of this administration is truly one of the worst things about it.

Amen on this post.

It is more than difficult to figure out exactly where the 30% of the folks who support this crew come from--how could any thoughtful person condone what has been done by these folks in any way, shape, or form?

Jack, I had a joke on this week about the fired attorneys: "They say this could lead to a constitutional crisis. Oh, please. We haven't used the Constitution in years."

We need a pool on when the Gone zales resigns.

My pick is Friday, April 13.

On a serious note, I wonder when the Senate will seriosly take this on.

It would do wonders if Spector, the ranking minority member, would tell the White House that he is putting a peronal "hold" on all judicial nominations and a "hold" on the DOJ budget in its entirey until all the folks involved -- Rove, Meier, the Deputy AG, etc., all show up on the Hill in response to subpoenas and sit down, under oath in an open Judiciary Committee hearing and 'splain themselves. With TV cameras running and with court reporters busily creating a transcript.

Shrub can claim all the exeutive privilege he wants for is admiistration. The Congress does not have any obligation to fund the administration.

A previous repugnican senator from Pennsylvania, I can see his face in my minds eye, I think it was Hugh Scott, was the catalyst who pushed Nixon into resigning.

Its time for something similar here.

The next two paragraphs in the article are instructive, Butch:

"Ms. Scolinos said the meeting was in Mr. Gonzales’s conference room at the Justice Department. The meeting focused on “rollout” of the dismissals, she said, and from available records was not a meeting in which a final target list was determined.

Another department official said that Mr. Gonzales did not recall the meeting and that his aides had been unable to determine whether he approved the dismissal plan then."

What's being said here is that Mr. Gonzales, as late as 10 days before the event, was not even idly curious about which 8.5% of his staff was about to be dismissed. And that now, less than four months after a meeting which discussed how to fire 8.5% of his staff, he doesn't even recall that it happened.

Now, I'm willing to believe a lot of stuff about Mr. Gonzales. But I am not willing to believe that he - the Attorney-General of the United States - is that much of an incurious airhead.

As others have said, there's nothing illegal about the administration firing some or even all of its US Attorneys. (It's a little odd to do so in the middle of an administration, but it's not illegal.) But it is pretty clear - as Mr. Clinton found out to his regret - that lying to Congress is a Bad Idea.

What we have here is a situation in which Gonzales has backed himself into a corner, where the only way he can avoid being outed as a liar is for him to prove conclusively that he's an idiot.

It's a tough choice, but that's politics for ya. :-)

"What's being said here is that Mr. Gonzales, as late as 10 days before the event, was not even idly curious about which 8.5% of his staff was about to be dismissed."

Maybe because the firing and reappointment of US attorneys is routine, legal, and no big deal? Face it, guys. There is simply no scandal here. This is a smoke screen created by the frustrated Democrat majority that has proven right out of the gates that they can't shoot straight. You want a real scandal? Take a look at that 'troop pull-out' bill that passed yesterday. The pork they tacked on to it is disgraceful even by DC standards.

routine, legal, and no big deal

More lies. Maybe you can be the next U.S. attorney for Oregon!

You know the old expression about not trusting a guy who doesn't drink? Well, for this administration the motto is: "Never trust a guy who can't lie with a smile on his face."

How did Bill Clinton get in here?

routine, legal, and no big deal

The standard firing of all USAs at the start of a term is routine, legal, and no big deal. Selectively targeting only a handful of USAs, in the middle of a term, for political reasons (read: prosecuting too many Republicans for things they did, and not prosecuting enough Democrats for things they didn't do), might be legal, but it is not routine, and it is a big deal.

There is simply no scandal here.

As Karl Rove would say: 'Duly noted'

"Maybe because the firing and reappointment of US attorneys is routine, legal, and no big deal"

If that's the case, then the string of inconsistent statements and documents given to Congress is really hard to explain. It's even harder to explain why the administration is resisting Congress' requests for statements on the record and under oath about it.

The administration is acting like they're covering up a scandal. That's not conclusive evidence that there is a scandal, but it sure does make the whole deal look worth looking into.

If there's no scandal, all they need to do to clear up this misunderstanding is be forthright and honest. The sooner they do it, the better for everyone.

There are no innocent suspects.

If there's no scandal, all they need to do to clear up this misunderstanding is be forthright and honest.

American public figures seem to have forgotten what Sister Edna taught us in fourth grade: Lying just makes it worse. Bubba and Monica, Martha Stewart's stock scam, now this. The underlying thing you're copping to isn't good, but it isn't that bad. Just admit it and move on. When you automatically start lying your way out of it, then it gets way bad.

They can't not lie. This was a small part of a larger and well co-ordinated effort to turn the Dept of Justice into an arm of the Republican party. It's the sort of thing you'd expect in, say, Pakistan or maybe Bolivia (with apologies to those two fine countries). I have some doubts, though, about where the inquiry leads. Maybe you get testimony; more likely, you get litigation that is unresolved for months or years. My vote would go toward the congress continuing to turn over more rocks rather than to continue to play with the bugs that were hiding under this one.

I would bet - as with the Plame affair - the White House has plenty of reason not to want to drag this out into the light. Just as we learned more about how Bush and Cheney lied us into Iraq through the Libby trial, we might learn something about how Fitzgerald was treated. He was a Justice Department attorney after all, and if he understood he could be fired for political reasons, that could have impacted his decisions not to indict Karl Rove or Cheney in the Libby trial. Even the jury wondered why Cheney and Rove weren't charged. Could the attorney scandal have something to do with it?

And to think, Gonzalez, who treats his job not as Attorney General, but as White House Counsel, could have been on the Supreme Court.

...could have been on the Supreme Court.

Too liberal according to Dr. Dobson. Which begs the question if a partisan legal hack is too liberal, then what is Alito?

"Which begs the question if a partisan legal hack is too liberal, then what is Alito?"

A damn good and smart Supreme Court Justice.

prosecuting too many Republicans for things they did, and not prosecuting enough Democrats for things they didn't do

Do you have info on these prosecutions that did or didnt happen? Because I cant find any news reports or anything about them. I have been looking for a week. All Google gives me is blog rants and Usenet posts. I would really like to know more about this.

Jon- Most of the reporting on this issue seems to have been initiated by Talking Points Memo. A little perusal of their site yielded an article you might find helpful. I only skimmed; there's lots more there and I'd be surprised if this is the best summary available there.

Indeed, Talking Points Memo and its related TPM Muckraker site are the best places to find the stuff. For the skeptics (because these sites are blogs), the mainstream media has spent the last week or so crediting TPM's reporters with being responsible for not letting go of this story to the point at which the mainstream media had to start paying attention.

I should add that the big one which I think initially tripped off TPM's BS detectors in fact was Washington, where the GOP was pressuring the US Attorney to prosecute Democrats for "voter fraud" that didn't actually exist.

I should add that the big one which I think initially tripped off TPM's BS detectors in fact was Washington, where the GOP was pressuring the US Attorney to prosecute Democrats for "voter fraud" that didn't actually exist.

See, thats where I dont buy it. There were reports back during the recounts that said there were more votes cast in King Co than there were registered voters. I think there was another county where that happened as well. And I remember something about ballots "magically" showing up in the recounts that werent counted the first time around.

Doesnt that stink to anyone else?

Doesnt that stink to anyone else?

It's time to play the righty troll's favorite game of 'Let's go back to another controversy--ala Clinton scandals'

What really stinks for me, 7 plus years after the fact, is the U.S. Supreme Court handing the presidency to W.---a truly sad day for our country in so many ways.

"It's time to play the righty troll's favorite game of 'Let's go back to another controversy--ala Clinton scandals'"

Oh, lord. No, it's not. Really.

"See, thats where I dont buy it. There were reports back during the recounts that said there were more votes cast in King Co than there were registered voters."

If these reports were true (got sources?), and if there was sufficient evidence to prosecute any individuals, and the USA for Washington declined to pursue the matter, then it might be that that particular firing had a reasonable nonpartisan* explanation.

So... what about the other six? In particular, what about David Iglesias, USA for New Mexico?

[*: We like a nonpartisan court system, right? I do!]

Hey, you know what Jimbo? I didnt bring it up. b!x did. I stated I didnt buy it, based on the news reports from the time.

A judge found there were over 1600 illegal votes cast, mostly by felons. But he said there was no proof anyone did it on purpose. (Apparently they didnt know they were felons?) There were ballots cast by dead people. And during the recounts, there were hundreds of ballots "found" that were not counted before. Some found in a warehouse, some under mail trays, etc. (Some were also originally rejected because of signature issues.) It all just sounded fishy to me.
You can find a lot of the info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004

"Apparently they didnt know they were felons?"

More likely the felons didn't know it was illegal for them to vote in Washington. Many states do not states disenfranchise any or all felons. The Washington state voter registration website ain't exactly clear on the issue even today.

But even if we grant that there was some crime committed there, that doesn't mean anything was prosecutable in a practical sense. (Hell, I know someone who can't get her rapist prosecuted by an Oregon county DA because of a lack of physical evidence, even though she is absolutely sure of the rapist's identity. Apparently prosecution is harder than it looks.)

In any case, even if the Washington USA was lax, you still haven't explained any of the other six dismissals. Remember, "over the last twenty-five years only ten US Attorneys have been dismissed other than at the beginning of a new president's term of office. And of those eight were for clear cause." (Source.)

In any case, even if the Washington USA was lax, you still haven't explained any of the other six dismissals.

I never said I could explain them. If you remember, I was asking if anyone else had info about corruption, because I couldnt find any. Then I was talking about the Washington election after someone else brought it up.

I wish I could explain them being fired. Then I could tell the media, so they can report it. Because we arent being told sh*t.

In order to be "thoughtful", I need to agree with a guy named "Jimbo"?

Even Mister Tee can't do that, not without a snicker.

Bumpersticker idea: Jimbo is LEFT!

Alternate: The LEFT knows what's Right.

"If you remember, I was asking if anyone else had info about corruption, because I couldnt find any."

Oh! I thought that was a prelude to an argument. I guess I jumped the gun on that. Sorry.

I also wish someone could explain it. In particular, I wish the people who fired them would just come out and explain the firings in a way that is self-consistent. They owe it to the people to tell the truth. (Or at least to construct a competent and well-formed lie. Don't they even care anymore?)

What many people still are not aware of is the cover-up of the sex abuse at the Texas Youth Commission and Gonzales involvement. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54882